Case Digest for Article 107: Spouses Estares v. CA, et. al.

SPOUSES ELISEO F. ESTARES and ROSENDA P. ESTARES, petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. DAMASO HERRERA as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna PROMINENT LENDING & CREDIT CORPORATION, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LAGUNA and Sheriff IV ARNEL G. MAGAT, respondents.

G.R. No. 144755, 8 June 2005

Facts:
The spouses Estares secured a loan of P800k from Prominent Lending & Credit Corporation (PLCC) in 1998. To secure the loan, they mortgaged a parcel of land. They however only received P637k as testified by Rosenda Estares in court. She did not however question the discrepancy. At that time, her husband was in Algeria working. The loan eventually went due and the spouses were unable to pay. So PLCC petitioned for an extrajudicial foreclosure. The property was eventually foreclosed.

Now, the spouses are questioning the validity of the loan as they alleged that they agreed to an 18% per annum interest rate but PLCC is now charging them 3.5% interest rate per month; they also questioned the terms of the loan.

PLCC argued that the spouses were properly apprised of the terms of the loan. On the procedural aspect, PLCC claims that the petition filed by the spouses is invalid because the certification of non-forum shopping was only signed by Rosenda and her husband did not sign.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition filed by the spouses is valid.

HELD:
Yes, but their petition shall not prosper due to substantial grounds. The spouses were properly apprised by the terms of the loan; they did not question the terms of the loan when they had the opportunity when it did not yet mature. Rosenda even acknowledged the terms of the loan in court.

On the procedural aspect, even though Eliseo did not sign the certification (because he was in Algeria), there is still substantial compliance with the rules. After all they share a common interest in the property involved since it is conjugal property, and the petition questioning the propriety of the decision of the Court of Appeals originated from an action brought by the spouses, and is clearly intended for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Considering that the husband was at that time an overseas contract worker working in Algeria, whereas the petition was prepared in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, a rigid application of the rules on forumshopping that would disauthorize the wife’s signing the certification in her behalf and that of her husband is too harsh and clearly uncalled for.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest for Article 91 of the Family Code: Munoz v. Ramirez and Carlos

Case Digest: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion | A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

Case Digest: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent | A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012